Fla. Stat, (1981) - Florida State University College of Law

More documents

Recommendations

Info

So. 2d 713 (Pla. 19811, co-defendants. Another factor ignored by the trial murt was the sentences of the that the 1mer court should have considerd. Gafford v, State, 387 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1980). Even had the jury reamended death, this is an important factor The factors of fairness and equal justice with regard to the sentences of the codefendants were present& to the jury, (T. 2491-24961, and mquestionably form a reasonable basis for the jury life reamnerdation. The concept of %qua1 justice under law" would have a hollow ring indeed if only the defendant were to receive the ultimate sentence for the murder of Nancy Sheppard. See Barclay v. State, 343 So. 2d 1266, 1271 (Fla. 1977); Slat-, supra; ksser v. State, 330 So. 2d 137 @la. 1976). The lmer court found m mitigating cirmtance under 5 921.141 (6) (g), the age of the defendant at the tire of the crh. argued to the jury that it should be considered, because at the age of 28, the defendant would be 78 before he was even eligible for parole if he were given life sentences. (T. 2497-2499). It is submitted that this factor was properly considered by the jury in mitigation. However, the defense There are clear indications from the sentencing order that the trial court did not exercise a "reasoned judgmnt'l in jrnpOsing a death sentence. statmt that Nancy Sheppard was not a drug user (R. 486), is in conflict with scientific evidence she had been using morphine (T. 1049). The statmt that Ridard Padgett was shot to death while on his knees begging for mcy, (R. 501- 502) is totally Without any evidentiaxy foundation whatsoever. The physical evidence and the uncontradicted testimony of the defendant indicated that Padgettwas shot from behind, in the back of the head, probably vhile taking off his shirt. ?&where in the sentencing order is there any indication that the court considered any non-statutory mitigating factors. to find any mitigating circmtances, even in the Padgett murder (where a life sentence was imposed), is not surprising. Page -82- The The failure of the court Judge Olliff has never found a
mitigating circumstance in a capital case, S. Ct, 3418, 3440 (1983) I (Wshall, J. diaseultbg2 The juy reccarmendatilon: - See Wclax v. FlorLdq, 103 This Court first explained the bportance of a jury recmmndation of - life in Tedder v. State, 322 So. 2d 908 @lae 1975): A jury remnmmdation under OUT trifurcated death penalty statute should be given great weight. In order to sustain a sentence of death following a jury reccmmmdation of life, the facts suggesting a sentence of death should be so clear and convincing that virtually no reasonable person could differ. Tedder, supra at 910. In applying the Tedder standard, the Court must determine if thexe was a reasonable basis for the jury recamadation. If there is a reasonable basis, then the jury recamendation must stand. Mlloy v. State, 382 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 1979). A jury life remmrsendation eliminates any presunption that death is the appropriate penalty when one or mre aggravating circumstances are present. Williams v. State, 386 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1980). All of the mitigating cirmtances presented by the defendant have been found by this court to form a reasonable basis for a juyy life remmndation: (1) Intoxication on drugs and alcohol. mff, supra; Buckran, supra, Norris v. State, 429 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1983). (2) mess or coercion. Goochin, supra. (3) Felatively minor participation, or dispute as to participation. Taylor, supra; Slater, supra; Malloy, supra; Hawkins, supra. (4) Parent of 2 young children. Jacobs, supra. (5) The defendant's family backgrod. McCampbell, supra; Washingtan- v. State, 432 So. 2d 44, (Fla. 1983). (6) Sentences of m-defedants. Slater, supra; Msllloy, supra; Neary v. State, 384 So, 2d 881 (Fla. 1980); Barfield v. State, 402 So. 2d 377 (.Ella. 1981); WcaXkillv, State 344 So, 2d 1276 (Fla. -r 1977). Page -83-
Page 1 and 2:
RPPEAL FffQM THE CIRCUIT COURIT OF
Page 3 and 4:
V TRIAL COuIiT EXRED IN FAILING TO
Page 5 and 6:
UNRELATED O??F'ENSE AS EVIDENCE OF
Page 7 and 8:
ACEEY. mm, 33tlTo~7"T% (Fla. 4th ;D
Page 9 and 10:
c?JME3IEV. smm 345 So. 2 d m CURRYV
Page 11 and 12:
i%W'HW v. STATE j// So'.' 2d 7807Fl
Page 13 and 14:
MCMILLANV. smm 4119 So. 2d 1-la. 3r
Page 15 and 16:
0 PRamCE v. STATE 337 So, 2d 7 n l
Page 17 and 18:
mmv, STATE 2d =la. 1st D.C.A, 1982)
Page 19 and 20:
0 INTRODUCTION The appellant, Fbber
Page 21 and 22:
of Other Crbs, Wrongs, or Acts. (R.
Page 23 and 24:
0 (T. 1128-1129).crooVer said nothi
Page 25 and 26:
0 going to kill "the mther fucker",
Page 27 and 28:
this would alleviate any problem be
Page 29 and 30:
took out his knife and stabbed Padg
Page 31 and 32:
(T, 1342-1343). mng's rmther disapp
Page 33 and 34:
he said it, "nobdy paid any mbd to
Page 35 and 36:
told the defendant to "back off". (
Page 37 and 38:
and said, Yh ny God". (T. 1260). tw
Page 39 and 40:
out of the cay. and walked around b
Page 41 and 42:
WHEXFER THE THE JUHI UPON THE LAW Q
Page 43 and 44:
IX X WHlTIWB THE TRIAL ERRED IN m I
Page 45 and 46:
XVIII WHEXfER THE TRUG COUW: FBRED
Page 47 and 48:
they were afraid of being killed by
Page 49 and 50: ut munsel could not argue it becaus
Page 51 and 52: to the co-defendant, who continued
Page 53 and 54: participate in the killing, 2. If t
Page 55 and 56: Brother Caps. (T. 1185) (4). the de
Page 57 and 58: So. 2d 583 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1983).
Page 59 and 60: EXPW AND JTETIFY PLEA BARWWNG WITH
Page 61 and 62: type of rebuke counsel received. on
Page 63 and 64: utilized the stature of his office
Page 65 and 66: likewise improper for the State Att
Page 67 and 68: Payment of mney to a witness for an
Page 69 and 70: the prosecutor informed a juror onc
Page 71 and 72: the fiream or threatened Padgett wi
Page 73 and 74: from the operation of discowry rule
Page 75 and 76: I resides. Stanley, supra; - Florid
Page 77 and 78: Pernutting the reputation testby. o
Page 79 and 80: little probative value w kn it is c
Page 81 and 82: - The fact that a defendant refused
Page 83 and 84: The United States Supre court has s
Page 85 and 86: 'BE general rule is that statements
Page 87 and 88: The general rule is that a witness'
Page 89 and 90: any person the defense "expects to
Page 91 and 92: CR, 6167 T, 58-7 Penalty (R. 16-31
Page 93 and 94: Sheppard's necklace and ring me tak
Page 95 and 96: (-TT* 1032, 10491. An execution-sty
Page 97 and 98: (5) W ilm Urgmn, the defendant's si
Page 99: The defense also argued for mitigat
Page 103: CFRI'IFICATE OF SERVTCE I HEREBY CE
show all

Fla. Stat, (1981) - Florida State University College of Law

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?